When liberals make comments that spark outrage, they result in death threats. When Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do it, they make money from it.

Maybe that's because people view liberals as intellectual and take them seriously while viewing the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh as the opposite -- and so laugh at them, elevating them to entertainers.
.

Hard to say if the law is a deterrent since violent crimes are dropping in the state anyway. But, my understanding is that the law has been used successfully in most instances. Only a handful of cases have tested the law. I do not believe it will go away. In fact, last year a bill was introduced to expand the law to businesses. It did not pass. However, there was significant support.

Isobars does have an important point. Other states are not, necessarily, following Calif. lead.

Actually this got me curious so I did a little research online. This isn't anything new that is "sweeping the country", and in fact California (who Mike dissed) has it. WHAT DEFINES it is how the elements of the law are defined and how case law has further redefined them.

Most are requiring some type of attack, or fear of attack combined with the "imminent danger". You have to have all of these before you can just "pull the trigger".

So in Mike's state it says...

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

As one who has been trained in law enforcement and the reading of laws and codes you learn to break it down to it's "elements". The important part of this one is...

"lawful defense"
"reasonable ground to apprehend a design"
"to commit a felony or do some great personal injury"
"immiment danger of such design being accomplished"

My purpose is not to play Supreme court and try to further define this with case law (I'm sure it already has been) but to show you can't just shoot somebody that breaks into your house. Even in Washington without all 4 parts above being true.

But what I found interesting is where they talk about the "effect on crime rates". According to Wikipedia the states with this have reduced murder by 9% and overall violent crime by 11%. Of course stats can be tweaked and misread, but still interesting....

Although in my neighborhood Robert Downey Jr. has been known to break into his neighbors home and fall asleep on the couch. He lives accross the street from me and I often wonder, would I pull a gun on him? It would be funny to force him to sit and listen to me blast him with conservative philosophy for a couple of hours at gunpoint.

Recently, a drunk college girl broke into a house in Boulder. She was shot (not killed) by the owners. No prosecution of the owners and no liability for her injuries. Colorado "make my day law" is very lenient.

You obviously know every answer to every problem and everybody else is wrong. … since you know "so many LEO's", and know all the FACTS to all these cases, I don't see any point in discussing them with you since it is a waste of time.

… you have no real legal idea of what your rights are if you actually use it. I know you think you do, but like so many other things, you are wrong. Of course this assumes this is actually true and not just more made up BS..

So because my evolving facts and opinions are based more on the experience and peer reviewed teachings of internationally renowned LEOs and their tactical and legal mentors and star students than on a few anonymous internet kibitzers and one LAPD cop, all of whom apparently contradict those sources which include another LAPD cop, I’M the villain? No WONDER so many people here think I’m nuts; from their viewpoint I most certainly AM … Thank goodness!

I cited many sources; you cited only personal experience. You already know of my international icon sources (e.g., Ayood, Suarez, Eimer, Taylor), and at the bottom of the page are brief summaries of the credentials of just a couple of the numerous LOCAL instructors my facts and opinions are evolving from. In addition, I’m getting trained and certified next week for UT and OR CCW permits valid in 34 states … just about every mainland state I’m likely to visit again. How many civilians do you think take this stuff as seriously as I do? Maybe more important, what else CAN I Do?

(BTW, even CA law contradicts JohnL's initial comments about home intruder defense. "§ 198.5. Presumption in favor of one who uses deadly force against intruder: Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury." That's all I claimed in my initial Castle comment.)

“Of course this assumes this is actually true and not just more made up BS”?
You disappoint me. You cannot cite one example of anything I’ve ever made up online, so your comment looks just like the other empty accusations we see here by the hundreds.

If I actually did “think I have a real legal idea of what [my] rights are if [I] actually [carry]”, as you say I do, why would I and my wife be spending a thousand bucks on all these courses and books and asking all these questions?

A big difference between the opposing parties in these forums is that most of you discuss primarily others’ personalities and ancestries while some of us are trying to discuss topics and issues. The two groups speak different tongues and have very different objectives. In this particular thread I’m trying to exchange information and opinions about guns, while many of you are more concerned with personal crap. The result is a Tower of Babel.

Another major difference is that most of the people here demand their claims be taken at face value, without question; when asked for explanation or support, they either clam up or cry racist/liar/angry/BS, etc. Even when presented with authoritative peer reviewed documents cited and/or posted in full, they often attack both the person who posted the document and the source of the document (Harvard School of Public Health is a right wing whacko institute? Massad Ayoob is just a book writer or classroom teacher?). I try instead to quote experts, cite them when necessary, add logic and opinions identified as such when appropriate, debate the issue when honest opinions clash, and encourage any interested parties to do their own homework/research rather than accept my word for anything available in the public domain. That’s more or less how rational discourse works, IMO. (Acknowledging liberal spades as “spades” is just a perk.)

(I merely "dissed" CA? Crap; is that all I managed this time? Damn; I'm slipping.)

Accomplishments (much more snipped):
• SWAT Officer of the Year
• DOE SPOTC top 3 finish, both individual and team (Tom Cruise, eat your heart out)
• A long list of regional and national shooting championships in handguns and long guns.

you might have offered the CHP half of your sandwich instead of looking pissed.

Not pissed; stunned ... and, of course, fully compliant with a big guy with a badge, a gun, a ticket book, and handcuffs. That was about 25 years ago, and I haven't yet broken my vow that day never to return. I cannot in good conscience spend one more dollar in a police state which thinks individual rights come from the state, the federal government, or even the Constitution, rather than from their real source: birth within U.S. borders.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum